Skip to main content

"Redistributive Change" and that Pesky Constitution

Forget all of the guilty associations. This audio of Obama shows his full colors flying for total government control over all human economic realities.



Centralized state-controlled wealth/property redistribution = no real private property = effective enslavement and subjugation.

I find his view that the Constitution is insufficient, just a document of "negative" rights, profoundly disturbing. The Constitution's essence is not merely as a document of prohibitions on what government can do to us, while anything else is up for grabs.

The Constitution is an eternal mandate that government exists to secure our innate rights as free people. It does not give us freedom, it exists to protect it against collective encroachments, by government above all. It does not "vest us" with rights, as Obama characterized the high court's decisions ordering government to equally protect the rights of African-Americans.

The Constitution has been our one and only bulwark against government that would vest itself as the "determiner" rather than defender of our liberties. Would-be social engineers and statists have long been vexed by what they view as its rigidity and failure to produce their desired outcomes. Obviously they are oblivious that the thwarting of such ad hoc collectivism is the whole point of the Constitution.

It is self-evident that the power to "vest" is also the power to "divest". Those who need to justify
property confiscation and re-distribution, in the name of engineered "economic justice", require such an arrangement of purported "self-governance".

I don't care that Obama is a neighbor or buddy of someone like Bill Ayers. I am far more frightened that Obama, not 7 years ago, sounded like Ayers' sophisticated pupil, complete with leftie crypto-megalomania.

Redistributive change? Repackaged socialism is more like it....


Comments

Anonymous said…
Tyler, if you haven't been watching it, PBS' Masterpiece Theatre has been running a miniseries called The Last Enemy, which I'm fairly certain you'd enjoy. The central theme is (Britain's) government surveillance over and ultimately control of their citizens - all for their own good, of course - and also the guy who played Begbie in Trainspotting is in it.
Tyler Nixon said…
Thanks for the heads-up, G. Sounds interesting. Britain's have let their country really go to hell as far as Big Brother. Orwell saw it coming.
Anonymous said…
Wow...anyone who considers the Warren Court as "not being radical enough" for redistributive change is truly hard-core socialist. As slick as Obama is at conveying his views, I could see him pushing all sorts of redistribution schemes through. There are so many people(including many in Congress) totally ignorant of the Constitution's purpose that they will fall for Obama's smooth talk.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...